MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

BratE9000 I would have given this three stars if not for the infuriating padded reviews. After reading the director/lead actor's bio, it is clear he is behind it. Shame on you!Make no mistake, folks, this movie is bad. Bad acting: Our padding culprit is not the worst of them, but to put it in perspective it looks like casting was done impromptu at the food court of the local mall in the morning and shooting began that the afternoon. Directing: Not awful, average at best. Set design: hit and miss, mostly miss. Costumes: fair to good. Editing: awful. Gaps, gaps, gaps or was that just the bad screenplay? It skips from scene to scene. You have to have seen the oldies to fill in the blanks. It became too exhausting. Costumes: pretty good. Makeup: blah, but i think i saw a pal conversion so hard to tell. Special effects: Hmmm. At first I was like, what? This looks worse than the effects of Sinbad in the 70's. This drew me in a little. Nostalgia, I guess, but it got old fast.Meh!

classicacres7050 If you are a Sinbad fan don't buy or watch this movie. I have been a Sinbad fan for over 50 years and have seen many Sinbad movies, but this one shouldn't even have the name on it. In fact they don't even pronounce it correctly...it sounds like "sandbag" in the movie. After watching it I was amazed that Patrick Stewart had anything to do with it. The special effects were a joke. You'd think it was made in the 40s or 50s instead of just last year. Even the blooper reel wasn't funny. I also should have had a hint about it when I didn't recognize any of the actors. I like to see new ones and I hope some of them get a second chance with a better script. The director should go back to playing terrorists or something like that. Again, don't waste your time or money, even if you have a Sinbad movie collection like I do. It won't be a part of it.

kiseli666 I had to register and make review for this masterpiece. I usually newer leaving comments on IMDb, but i was provoked when i saw all that 10 star reviews. Must be the film crew or family of makers of this s... If i could gave 0 i would, the movie is awful, newer watched worst film, could not finish it how much disaster this movie is...The first animation of that blue thing is awesome :)) like its made in 80's, special effect are also very bad, and poorly done. Acting had some nice moments, but overall very bad...Vote:VFX: 0 Acting: 0 Animations: 000Don't lose time watching this.

schwicked There are several fake reviews for this movie, attempting to counter the 1 stars with a bunch of 10/10 reviews. Be warned, this movie is one of the worst ever made. It's not subjective, it's just a fact. There have been worse movies but they were all made in the 70's about workplace safety.There are several aspects of this movie that are terrible.The acting is on par with that which you might find in a play put on hastily by teenagers, who forget to make a script... or a plot. The script, if one exists, is the kind of thing that makes the likes of 10,000 BC or Cats & Dogs look like masterworks. It mostly consists of one character telling everyone what is happening then another saying "oh yes, that is happening", to which a third character will exclaim that "I have also noticed it happening, and this is how I feel about it." Which may or may not be accompanied by an expression, which is supposed to convey an emotion but somehow doesn't.The story was clearly not story boarded. That's the only conclusion I can come up with as to why giant swathes of the plot are skipped over from scene to scene. I have actually advised several film students to watch the movie as a warning, to illustrate what happens if you try and make a movie without properly planning it beforehand. You end up with missing scenes. In the case of Sinbad, you are missing at least 20 minutes, since the movie purports to be 89 minutes long but is actually only 69.Editing. It's one of those jobs that is utterly thankless. If you do a good job, nobody notices but if you do a bad job, you ruin everything. As an illustration of what you can expect, we have a scene in the movie where, not once but twice, the camera has a slow, lingering shot of what we're told is a honey comb (people who have seen a honey comb know that they rarely look so much like a throbbing member though), the shot is accompanied by tense, combat style music. It is surreal. As if to compliment that, we have combat scenes, scored by gentle, Sunday strolling music. Effects. Much has been made of the effects by the fake reviews but they really, really shouldn't. The effects are just plain bad. They are bad, to the extent, that the 1958 Sinbad movie, which featured the stunning work of Ray Harryhausen, is leagues ahead, not 50+ years behind. The idea of paying homage is fantastic and certainly stop-motion, with the modern tools available can really be brought to the next level, it just hasn't been here. It has dramatically missed the next level, fallen short and landed in a vat of angry alligators.In short, the movie is a disaster, the likes of which most will be lucky to never see. For everyone else, watch this movie, only so that you might warn others.Please insert your own sign-off pun, based on movie quality, containing the words 'sin' and 'bad'................................. ...............here.